Little has seen the evidence

[LoungeLizard]

If we win this court case and bring about our desired outcome, there will be a lot of tears in this thread.

The "evidence" may be shown up to be an unlawful, circumstantial, politically-influenced pile of garbage. If so, there will be no SCNs and you'll never know the full story and feel compelled to whinge about it for years

On the other hand the scn's might be let to take their course, and then who will doing the whinging? empty pockets and all

 

[BomberBro2]

And your club will be forever regarded as drug cheats which you can whinge about for years. Evidence is evidence. Claiming it is politically influenced is just a deflection by the EFC propaganda machine. Andruska denied she was influenced.

Evidence is evidence?

Nope - Evidence needs to be critically obtained, through a clear lens, from credible sources.

To suggest otherwise is... well...

 

[Matilda05]

Evidence is evidence?

Nope - Evidence needs to be critically obtained, through a clear lens, from credible sources.

To suggest otherwise is... well...

Must stop feeding the Trolls.... Must stop feeding the Trolls....

 

[BomberBro2]

Must stop feeding the Trolls.... Must stop feeding the Trolls....

FFS how can you argue against my point?

The accumulation of evidence is a crucial process and to argue that "evidence is evidence" is moronic.

How credible are the sources? Have all sources been fully explored?

How pure were the surrounding influences on this process (eg. politically charged)?

What pieces of evidence were ignored? What has been accepted by indirect inferences? How much of it has been spun?

It is essential for the evidence to be sound, and obviously we don't think it is. Therefore, we challenge how sound the evidence is, while the public come up with all kinds of conspiracy theories to support their desperation to see us hanged.

 

[Matilda05]

FFS how can you argue against my point?

The accumulation of evidence is a crucial process and to argue that "evidence is evidence" is moronic.

How credible are the sources? Have all sources been fully explored?

How pure were the surrounding influences on this process (eg. politically charged)?

What pieces of evidence were ignored? What has been accepted by indirect inferences? How much of it has been spun?

It is essential for the evidence to be sound, and obviously we don't think it is. Therefore, we challenge how sound the evidence is, while the public come up with all kinds of conspiracy theories to support their desperation to see us hanged.

You are making the assumption ALL the evidence used for the SCN was from that part of the investigation. Do you know this for a fact? Otherwise yes I can argue against some of your points. I do agree that evidence does need to be gathered in a legal manner, but to say the entire investigation is invalid etc. is a bit of a stretch. IMO the reason people have an issue with the EFC and it's supporters is the amount bull crap spin they have put out.

 

[BomberBro2]

You are making the assumption ALL the evidence used for the SCN was from that part of the investigation. Do you know this for a fact? Otherwise yes I can argue against some of your points. I do agree that evidence does need to be gathered in a legal manner, but to say the entire investigation is invalid etc. is a bit of a stretch. IMO the reason people have an issue with the EFC and it's supporters is the amount bull crap spin they have put out.

There are many shades of grey when interpreting complex data from multiple sources and reading through each of their agendas. To simply frame this argument as a valid/invalid dichotomy is missing the point. There is a degree of doubt over the evidence obtained. The SCNs are circumstantial and only require a balance of probability, rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" - can you see why the process is important now?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

And your club will be forever regarded as drug cheats which you can whinge about for years. Evidence is evidence. Claiming it is politically influenced is just a deflection by the EFC propaganda machine. Andruska denied she was influenced.

Aurora didn't issue any SCNs

 

[Matilda05]

There are many shades of grey when interpreting complex data from multiple sources and reading through each of their agendas. To simply frame this argument as a valid/invalid dichotomy is missing the point. There is a degree of doubt over the evidence obtained. The SCNs are circumstantial and only require a balance of probability, rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" - can you see why the process is important now?

Yes I can, hence the agreement the evidence needs to be gathered in a legal manner. My question(s) to you, say there is "evidence" that shows prohibited conduct by the EFC, but it is found to be gained unlawfully, should it be considered invalid (yes IMO) and thus can't be used by ASADA, does this mean EFC didn't cheat?

 

[The King!]

If we win this court case and bring about our desired outcome, there will be a lot of tears in this thread.

The "evidence" may be shown up to be an unlawful, circumstantial, politically-influenced pile of garbage. If so, there will be no SCNs and you'll never know the full story and feel compelled to whinge about it for years

And if you lose?

 

[BomberBro2]

Yes I can, hence the agreement the evidence needs to be gathered in a legal manner. My question(s) to you, say there is "evidence" that shows prohibited conduct by the EFC, but it is found to be gained unlawfully, should it be considered invalid (yes IMO) and thus can't be used by ASADA, does this mean EFC didn't cheat?

If there is clear, direct evidence that strongly links Essendon players to the use of prohibited, performance-enhancing drugs... then yes, we should cop the full force of ASADA's whack, and we should do so without complaint.

I understand why evidence can sometimes be rendered invalid (google why police say "you have the right to remain silent"), however in this case it's in the best interests of everyone to end it ASAP.

What matters to me is the truth. Even if our players didn't intend to, if they were proven to have cheated (due to ignorance) then I would be against us fighting this any longer. Just cop the whack and move on.

From what I've seen so far, there's just too much potential for the evidence to be tainted. So I want us to fight it every step of the way, regardless of what angle we attack them from - that's just a sideshow, a technicality mumbo jumbo, that aims to prevent the tainted truth from becoming the real truth.

 

[CBombers17]

Aurora didn't issue any SCNs

That she can recall...

 

[BomberBro2]

And if you lose?

I'm not sure on the legal talk, but it's pretty simple in my mind:

Did we actually cheat?

If yes, give us our whack ASAP so we can move on.
If no, squash all the bad media ASAP so we can move on.

 

[The King!]

I'm not sure on the legal talk, but it's pretty simple in my mind:

Did we actually cheat?

If yes, give us our whack ASAP so we can move on.
If no, squash all the bad media ASAP so we can move on.

They tried
But someone took it to court to argue process

 

[Bunk Moreland]

And if you lose?

Dear ASADA

For the answers to your accusations, please refer to the hundreds of hours of interviews you conducted with us, where we answered everything honestly and were praised by your own investigators for our cooperation

Cheers

 

[romeoh]

I'm not sure on the legal talk, but it's pretty simple in my mind:

Did we actually cheat?

If yes, give us our whack ASAP so we can move on.
If no, squash all the bad media ASAP so we can move on.

Think we are all with you there.
Pretty sure its your club that is delaying us getting to that part.

 

[BomberBro2]

They tried
But someone took it to court to argue process

I think their definition of balance of probability was about 70% likely that they believed we had cheated, yes?

If they had evidence to suggest we were 95% likely to have cheated, I would agree with you.

The SCNs mean there's still about a 30% chance we're innocent and without knowing exactly what their evidence is, it's a big risk for us to get whacked wrongly. Fair enough we took it to court.

 

[West Coast 06]

If you don't what the evidence is, how do you come up with a 30% chance you are innocent?

 

[BomberBro2]

Think we are all with you there.
Pretty sure its your club that is delaying us getting to that part.

Yes but with a probability of only about 70%, there's way too much potential for us to get wrongly punished and forever tainted as cheaters.

How would you react if someone accused you of murder, you knew you didn't do it, but they said "we know you can't defend yourself because you have no alibi, but we're 70% sure you did it so come and face the music"?

 

[BomberBro2]

If you don't what the evidence is, how do you come up with a 30% chance you are innocent?

Because the SCNs are issued on the balance of probability, not "beyond reasonable doubt" (which is 95% or 99%).

ASADA aren't stupid. They wouldn't issue SCNs unless they were confident of getting a conviction.

But they're only 70% confident, which is where I got the 30% room for error from.

Meanwhile, the public have already decided that we are guilty, ignoring the low threshold required for SCNs to be issued.

 

[BlueWorld]

Aurora didn't issue any SCNs

Relevance?

 

[BlueWorld]

Yes but with a probability of only about 70%, there's way too much potential for us to get wrongly punished and forever tainted as cheaters.

How would you react if someone accused you of murder, you knew you didn't do it, but they said "we know you can't defend yourself because you have no alibi, but we're 70% sure you did it so come and face the music"?

There are multiple avenues of appeal if you truly believe that. You can rest assured that in issuing the SCN's ASADA have made sure they will stand up to all appeals. I think you are being paranoid and really just trying to fight the process rather than accept that the system is a world wide one that nearly every athlete in the world accepts- except the EFC and its litigious president.

 

[BomberBro2]

There are multiple avenues of appeal if you truly believe that. You can rest assured that in issuing the SCN's ASADA have made sure they will stand up to all appeals. I think you are being paranoid and really just trying to fight the process rather than accept that the system is a world wide one that nearly every athlete in the world accepts- except the EFC and its litigious president.

I agree that ASADA are confident they will stand up to our appeals - because they only have to be 70% sure.

That's why we don't want to take that risk.

Meanwhile, we don't have records to prove our innocence (our bad) but that doesn't mean we cheated. Just that we're 70% guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Relevance?

Re-read the conversation

 

[chelseacarlton]

70% flawed argument
30% BS
More like it!.

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

If there is clear, direct evidence that strongly links Essendon players to the use of prohibited, performance-enhancing drugs... then yes, we should cop the full force of ASADA's whack, and we should do so without complaint.

I understand why evidence can sometimes be rendered invalid (google why police say "you have the right to remain silent"), however in this case it's in the best interests of everyone to end it ASAP.

What matters to me is the truth. Even if our players didn't intend to, if they were proven to have cheated (due to ignorance) then I would be against us fighting this any longer. Just cop the whack and move on.

From what I've seen so far, there's just too much potential for the evidence to be tainted. So I want us to fight it every step of the way, regardless of what angle we attack them from - that's just a sideshow, a technicality mumbo jumbo, that aims to prevent the tainted truth from becoming the real truth.

There has been no suggestion that I am aware of the any evidence has been tainted. Collected contrary to the Act possibly. In this instance, these are very different things.

Again, as far as I am aware, no one has made any suggestion that the players and support staff told anything but the full truth as they know it in the interviews. As far as the truth itself is concerned, does it matter much if the truth was freely given or collected contrary to the Act?

If the players and support staff are re-interviewed, would you support them in once again telling the truth and thus repeating what they have previously stated?